Not Very Good, Fellas!

I love this case. It is a Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision but ought to be followed here. See the title link.

It is important for, well, restaurant reviewers. However, it is important also for anyone who wants to express an opinion. That includes, for instance, book, film and theatre critics. It also includes bloggers and anyone else who posts over the internet. So read it.

The allegedly offending article appeared as long ago as 26th August 2000 in The Irish News. The first hearing did not start until 29th January 2007 and the appeal judgment is dated 10th March 2008. It is not pleasant to have to comment that the courts in England & Wales are sometimes no quicker in bringing about a final resolution to cases. In fact, this case has not been finally concluded because it has been sent back for the first court to apply the correct law. I imagine the parties will, now, however, settle.

A succinct summary of the review is at paragraph 8 of the judgment of Lord Chief Justice Kerr:

"In its final, amended form the plaintiff's statement of claim alleged that the words of the review, in their natural and ordinary meaning, were intended to and did in fact mean that the plaintiff did not train his staff; that he used the cheapest ingredients on the market; that he overcharged; that he served poor quality and inedible food; that he served frozen vegetables and pizza; that his restaurant was pretentious, badly managed, not worth going to and had a joyless atmosphere."

That is, it was the reviewers' (there were two of them) considered opinion that this was about as bad a restaurant as you were likely to find.

Should I identify the restaurant? Well, I already have by providing a link to the judgment. In fairness, however, it should be mentioned that this review is over 7 years' old. Alright, it is Goodfellas in West Belfast.

The judge below had simply got it wrong. The CA held at paragraph 31 that:

"Of greater consequence, however, was the judge's acceptance that all of this material was factual in nature. In fairness to him, it had been portrayed by the defendant as such but, as I have already observed, much of it was plainly comment and other statements might reasonably have been regarded as opinions or inferences drawn from facts rather than unvarnished imputations of fact. Thus, for example, the statements that the reviewers were happy to order cola but did not enjoy it; that the cola was flat, warm and watery; that the squid rings were translucent grey in appearance; that they did not taste like squid; that the starters were of poor quality; that the sauce on the chicken Marsala was very sweet and a bad accompaniment for the savoury food; that the spaghetti dish had overcooked pasta, a lot of sauce and unattractive looking seafood in the sauce; that the reviewers did not enjoy their main courses; that the chips were pale, greasy and undercooked; and that the reviewers were unimpressed by the poor standard of their dining experience were all matters of comment and not statements of fact. They should have been identified as such by the judge and he should have directed the jury that they should so regard them."

Bloggers and contributors to websites should not yet celebrate. The following case presents a dire warning to porkie pie merchants who think of the internet as affording them protection:

Gentoo v Hanratty

I will post on this shortly. Do remember that this a lawyer's promise.